TWCL Forum Index TWCL
Forums for The Webcomic List
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Are past winners eligible to be nominated again?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> TWCL Awards
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rcmonroe



Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:32 pm    Post subject: Are past winners eligible to be nominated again? Reply with quote

I wanted to initiate a discussion concerning a comic's eligibility for "repeating" as a winner. I couldn't find a set of nominating rules in this thread (maybe I didn't look hard enough). If the issue has already been brought up and resolved to everyone's satisfaction, I won't bore you all with my proposal. Otherwise, consider this fair warning!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chilari
Spambot Extraordinaire


Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 2458
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Provided they don't become judges, I don't see why not. Perhaps after a certain number of wins in one category, they can be elevated to the Hall of Fame and then removed from nominations in that category, but still be eligable for other categories, and other comics by the same webcomicker would still be eligable.
_________________
"S*P*Q*R"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rcmonroe



Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I’m gonna try not to get too long-winded here. First, my proposal; then, my defense of same; then I’ll respond to Dutch, Chilari, and wendyw.

Webcomics should be ineligible to be nominated for a TWCL Award they have already won.

We tend to think of annual awards in terms of rewarding the recipients for work they did that year, or the previous year. A lot of awards do that; the Most Valuable Player awards in American sports, most obviously. The Academy Awards. The Emmys. The Grammys. For webcomics, I’m not convinced it’s appropriate.

Webcomics are ongoing; the present builds on the past, and it’s very difficult to separate a latter portion of a story from the earlier part of the story. That earlier part is its foundation.

You don’t want to have to be judging webcomics solely on the portion of their archives that covers the previous year, do you? Don’t you want to be judging them as a whole?

If so, does it make sense to say “This is the Best Webcomic of the Year” or does it make a lot more sense to say, “This year we’re honoring this Webcomic, for its continuing excellence over the past x number of years.”

In a lot of cases, it’s not even possible to determine which portion of a webcomics’ archive is from a given year; a lot of webcomics management systems don’t require dates, so the cartoonists (or their webmasters) don’t use them. How do you judge a webcomic’s “year” if you can’t even tell when its year begins or ends?

Not all prominent awards are based on work done the previous year; some are more like “lifetime achievement” awards. If a past winner of a Nobel Prize makes some important breakthrough in his field, do they award him another Nobel Prize? They don’t need to—he’s already been honored, and there are other deserving honorees.

There are other examples. Closer to home for webcomics, The National Cartoonists Society has annually awarded its “Reuben” to the “Outstanding Cartoonist of the Year” since 1946. A handful of people have won it twice: Schulz, Watterson, Gary Larson, Caniff, Oliphant, MacNelly. The voting membership is fairly small, so that was bound to happen; but if you look at individual years, you can tell that they’re trying to honor people for their accumulated accomplishments. Jack Davis won it in 2000. Al Jaffee won it in 2007. Those guys have been working for 50+ years. Don’t you think Al Jaffee’s award in 2007 was based more on his lifetime of achievements in cartooning than on anything he did in 2007? What did he do in 2007? If the award was supposed to go to the most successful cartoonist of the year, shouldn’t Charles Schulz have won it in 1969, when Peanuts was in 2000 newspapers, a movie, a few TV specials, a Broadway play, and a friggin’ moon landing? For that matter, he probably should have won it every year from 1965 to 1975. But he’d already been honored (twice!), and there were other deserving honorees.

There are tens of thousands of webcomics out there. Most of them are not worthy of awards, but a lot of them are, and not just the most popular ones. Bestowing an award on each of the most popular webcomics (if the voters so choose) ONCE is fine; they deserve it. After that, it’s redundant, and it cheapens the award. They’ve already been honored, and there are other deserving honorees.

You want people to respect the awards, and you want people to care about them. As far as respect, I’m not saying don’t honor the best; I’m saying, the best is subjective, and the best may be getting buried by the popular. It really doesn’t do anybody any good if the same comics keep getting nominated for all the awards; people are going to lose interest, and honoring the same people ad nauseum ceases to be an honor; it’s more like a chore.


Dutch wrote:
If you're good enough to win, you're good enough to win. If you're not, no point complaining that the bloke that IS good enough to win won, eh?

Chance it could become another award that goes to the regulars again, but hey, if people vote for them cos they think they're worthy winners, then that's the way these things go.


"Good" enough to win, or popular enough to win? I think there are probably a lot of comics "good" enough to win, but they're not popular enough to even get nominated. Clogging the field with past winners will assure that they never do.

Chilari wrote:
Provided they don't become judges, I don't see why not. Perhaps after a certain number of wins in one category, they can be elevated to the Hall of Fame and then removed from nominations in that category, but still be eligable for other categories, and other comics by the same webcomicker would still be eligable.


Yeah, I'm not suggesting that a comic should be stricken from eligibility from ALL categories just because it won one award; that would be silly. I AM suggesting that giving a comic the same award year after year doesn't serve much of a purpose.

I like the idea of a Hall of Fame, actually, but I think it should be for completed comics. Once a comic is finished, it becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame. But that's tangential to what I wanted to discuss here.

wendyw wrote:
If it becomes a problem, then it's something we'll have to look at later on. At this point I don't think we should really be ruling out the possibility of people winning the same award consecutive years.


Well, "problem" is subjective; some people may not have a problem with bestowing award after award to the same handful of comics year after year, and I'm not here to say they're wrong; I just think there may be a better way to greet the morning. I say fix it before it becomes a problem; else you risk tainting the awards forever.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rcmonroe



Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well then. I guess this is what is known as "being outnumbered". I'll shoot a few more salvos your way anyway, just to see if anything sticks.

But before I address specific concerns, let me again make one thing extremely clear:

This is not about “fixing” the awards so that obscure comics can win them instead of the far more “deserving” popular comics. It’s merely a matter of defining the awards as something you can only win once, because the climate in which webcomics exist makes it appropriate to do so.

wendyw wrote:
The problem with banning a comic from winning the same award multiple years is that you essentially are telling the people nominating comics who they can and can't nominate


That is correct. You’re telling them “you can only nominate comics that are eligible to be nominated.” Since there would be a valid reason (which would presumably be prominently displayed on the site) that the ineligible comics are ineligible, I don’t see what the problem is.

Quote:
We're already disqualifying some popular comics each year by making anything that the judges for the year have worked on inelligible.


Exactly. They’re disqualified for a valid reason, just as past winners would be disqualified for a valid reason.

Quote:
The fact that the judges for each award will vary from year to year, along with the points based voting system judges use, should go some way to reducing any potential issues.

I'm not against making a rule on the subject at a later date if the committee think it's neccesary, but as much as having the same people win over and over is not ideal, neither in my opinion is putting too many restrictions on who people can nominate, so unless there are signs that the restrictions will be neccesary I'd like to avoid them.


It’s one more restriction. As for the “signs that the restrictions will be necessary”, I think all the signs you need can be found in the results of last year’s TWCL Awards and in the previous WCCA’s:

2009 TWCL Finalists “Best Comic”
Girl Genius
Gunnerkrigg Court
Nedroid
Questionable Content
Rival Angels

2008 WCCA Finalists “Outstanding Comic”
Achewood
Girl Genius
Gunnerkrigg Court
The Perry Bible Fellowship
The Phoenix Requiem

2007 WCCA Finalists “Outstanding Comic”
Girl Genius
Gunnerkrigg Court
Narbonic
The Perry Bible Fellowship
Scary Go Round
Templar, Arizona

2006 WCCA Finalists “Outstanding Comic”
Achewood
Girl Genius
Fetus X
Inverloch
Narbonic
The Perry Bible Fellowship
Scary Go Round

And so on, and so on. Girl Genius is in there every year; Gunnerkrigg Court is in there three years in a row; Achewood’s in there twice; Inverloch ended and its creator started The Phoenix Requiem—boom, it gets nominated. The Perry Bible Fellowship, Scary Go Round and Narbonic were nominated multiple times, until they stopped updating; otherwise there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t have continued to be nominated. I’m not saying “these comics didn’t deserve to be nominated”; I’m saying “Is that all?”

The people have spoken in a clear voice. They’re saying “we’re going to nominate the same comics every year; the ones we’ve heard of”

jynksie wrote:
When you look at national awards like the Emmys, Oscars, Academy Awards, People Choice Awards ... and the list goes on... they don't omit past winners from being nominated again the following year for winning the previous. It's like saying "Hey Greys Anatomy, you won once, your done now, but keep on making those shows we'll no longer consider for nomination!"


Those awards, and the rules that govern them, are appropriate for those media. Webcomics are different. There are dozens of films released each year; a devoted member of the Academy can make him or herself familiar with all or most of them (and actually, he doesn’t have to, since a movie has to apply to be considered, reducing the number of films the voters have to familiarize themselves with).

But there are thousands of webcomics. Nobody, no matter how dedicated they are, can claim to be familiar with all of them, or even anything more than a tiny percentage of them. Essentially what the current structure of the TWCL Awards says is, “you can only be considered if you’re one of a handful of very popular webcomics.”

Quote:
What could be more promising for anyone than to have multiple wins? These awards are designed to give accolades to the best of the best and if the best happens to win more than once, then it's obviously deserved.


Obviously. Note that I didn’t say it wasn’t deserved. In fact, I said it was deserved. That’s not the problem; the problem is that only the very, very popular comics have a chance to be nominated, and there are other comics deserving of recognition too.

Dutch wrote:
No, RC, I agree. There's plenty of work out there that's good enough to win things like this but get drowned out by the static of the thousands of others around them. I'd like to think I'm one of them, to be honest.


Then step up and be heard! Speak up for defining an award you could win!

Quote:
The thing here is that when these things seem to come up for nomination rounds, it seems it so much easier just to jump on the big ones (or the second tier big ones) and put their name forward again. If you put forward a suggestion that people nominate ones outside of those ranges for work they think is suitable but not so well known, then when you come around to the voting process, you probably have the issue of voters voting for the ones they know because we can't be reading through entire archives of little known strips to make a legitimate decision on each.

That's possibly a little cynical and a lazy view, but I don't doubt the lesser known nominations in these sorts of things are behind the eight ball when it comes to voting because the majority of people won't want to spend their weekends going through all these archives to give a fair opinion. It's easier to vote for the one you know and like and only give passing reference to the others.


I don’t blame the voters, I blame the voting system. I don’t think people vote for the popular comics because they’re lazy or because they don’t do their homework; they vote for them because they like them. But they might like some of the lesser known ones too, if they knew about them.

Quote:
That said... I stopped following these sorts of things years ago... mainly for the reasons I said above. I don't have the time or inclination to read through that many webcomics!


Neither does anyone else. Which is why so few webcomics “break through”. Ever notice that almost all of the most popular webcomics are the ones that have been around for seven or eight years or longer? And that except in the rarest of cases, the only exceptions to that are the new creations of previous popular comics (e.g. Inverloch/The Phoenix Requiem)? People are reluctant to pick up on newer webcomics, because there’s just so damn many of them. It’s overwhelming.

Zoe Robinson wrote:
While I agree that there's always the chance that popular comics will win year in, year out, I don't see that changing unless you remove the public vote. Readers like what they like and you can't do anything about that.


Well, under the current voting structure, the public only nominates the comics; ideally the fact that you have qualified judges making the final selections allows for the cream to rise to the top. I’m not suggesting saying to the people, “no, you’re wrong, you can’t nominate this again because you have no taste;” I’m suggesting saying “right, we gave that one the award last year; what else you got?” It’s not like there are only six comics that people like. But if we give them their award and in effect get them out of the way, we give other comics a chance that will otherwise never have one.

Quote:
Stopping previous winners from winning again would turn the awards into something else entirely.


Yes, that’s exactly right. It will turn them into something more akin to the Nobel Prize as opposed to the Golden Globes. It will turn them into something that makes sense for webcomics, as opposed to making sense for movies or TV shows. There are thousands of webcomics, just as there are thousands of physicists, economists, statesmen, etc. Einstein won one Nobel Prize. Is it because he only “deserved” one? No; it’s because the voting structure of the Nobel Prize recognizes the climate of the fields in which they give awards. It recognizes that there are many deserving nominees, and that giving the same person the same award every year accomplishes very little of value.

Quote:
Instead of being what the readers and judges both think is the best comic this year, it will become "the best of the rest - what we think is great this year, barring everything we've already mentioned in previous years".


Again, It’s not “banning all the good comics so the crappy ones can have a chance too”, it’s a recognition of the fact that the voting structure as it is will not allow anything but the most popular comics to be nominated, and that there are other deserving nominees.

This is just a matter of defining the awards as a one-time thing. It’s not even a redefinition, since there’s no definition now.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rcmonroe



Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zoe Robinson wrote:
rcmonroe wrote:
Exactly. They’re disqualified for a valid reason, just as past winners would be disqualified for a valid reason.


I'm not sure it is a valid reason. It feels, to me, like artificial throttling of the nominations.


I don’t see anything artificial about it. Is the Nobel Prize artificial? All I’m suggesting is making it one type of award (a “lifetime achievement” award like the Nobel Prize) rather than another type of award (a “this year’s best” award like the Academy Awards).

Quote:
The response to being prevented from nominating comics people have heard of will not be "oh, I'd better go and find some other comics I like, then". It will be "sod this. If I can't vote for who I want, I'm not voting".

If people can't vote for the comics they've heard of, the awards will not work. Don't ask people to put effort in to voting, they won't do it.


I won’t try to predict what all people will do, but I suspect most people read more than three webcomics, and having seen their favorite win one year, may welcome the opportunity to nominate their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th favorites the next. It's not “Go find some new comics,” it's “What else do you like?” That’s the point of allowing people to vote for three webcomics, isn’t it? To substantiate the diversity of their opinions?

Quote:
You have far more faith in humanity than I do. When I think of restricting the vote, which is what you're arguing for, I think people will not bother. Don't try to tell them they can't vote for their favourites this year because they won last year, it will only piss people off and stop them bothering to vote, or even pay attention.


I think it will only piss off the people who don’t understand what you’re doing and why you’re dong it. You’d make it very clear. You’d have some verbiage on the website (prominently displayed, so no one could miss it without trying real hard) like:

“In the interest of recognizing excellence in webcomics wherever it may exist, the TWCL Awards have adopted the policy of making each Award one-time honor. We feel this will promote recognition of the many worthy webcomics in the field today”

…or something. Make it clear what you’re doing, make it clear why you’re doing it. If people refuse to understand, they refuse to understand. Eliminating the idiot vote seems like a worthy goal to me.

As far as people paying attention to the awards, I think nothing will make people lose interest faster than the same comics winning year in and year out. I suspect that was one of the things that killed the WCCAs.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chilari
Spambot Extraordinaire


Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 2458
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Allowing comics to be nominated again after they win means that, if that comic remains the best, it wins again. If it is no longer the best, it will not win again. Simple. If another comic surpasses it during that year, then, quite simply, it wins instead of last year's winner. But if last year's winner is still the best, but not allowed to be nominated because it's already won, then the second best will get an award which proclaims that it's the best, when it isn't, which I don't think is fair on the comic that really is the best and the creators of that comic. Repeated wins would demonstrate that a comic is continuing to be good, even that it is improving if other comics also nominated are very good too.
_________________
"S*P*Q*R"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rcmonroe



Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dutch wrote:
Other reasonable people may think I'm a complete dill for thinking this though, and fair enough! Some of you may think along the lines 'I've got it once, I'm gonna go for THREE IN A ROW!

I just... don't think it's necessary. You won. You've been recognised. Someone else will be recognised next year because yours doesn't need to be any more. You've climbed that pinnacle. Time to find another mountain.


You mean you’re not an insecure, attention-whoring egomaniac? Then what are you doing drawing webcomics?

NekoMusume wrote:
I really don't see how disqualifying a prior winner is required or for that matter, fair, if we were to do this, we would be one of a very small list of awards that do.


Dutch wrote:
You lot like the qords and idea of 'disqualification', eh?

Disqualifying means they've done something wrong or outside the rules. These comics who's been given these pats on the back have clearly won, so they couldn't have done anything wrong or broken any rules to be disqualified. It's not disqualifying. It's recognising they've reached that level of success already.


Exactly. Well, one convert is probably more than I could have reasonably hoped for. Thanks, Dutch.

I’m wondering if what I’m asking people to do here is to think too much outside the box. There seems to be a mindset that there can only be one legitimate type of award—the kind that rewards performance solely within a given year—and that any other definition of an award is somehow a perversion of the One True Way.

The Nobel Prizes, people—probably the most famous and prestigious awards in the world. It’s not like I had to look to the arcane and obscure to come up with an example.

Chilari wrote:
Allowing comics to be nominated again after they win means that, if that comic remains the best, it wins again. If it is no longer the best, it will not win again. Simple. If another comic surpasses it during that year, then, quite simply, it wins instead of last year's winner.


You make it sound like it’s not even a subjective judgment.

Novil wrote:
Moreover, the winner is determined by a jury that will contain at least one or two different judges each year. I don’t see the problem.


The judges don’t make the nominations. They can only choose among what the nominating public gives them. If it’s the same comics every year, that’s the problem.

Look, I don’t enjoy howling into the wind. It’s clear that what I’m expressing is the minority view, to say the least. If you want to stick to what you feel is a more standard definition of an award, it really is okay, nobody’s getting hurt. Let’s move on.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rcmonroe



Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dutch wrote:
Things like the Oscars, etc, are awarded to finished products, so a person can easily (if they're Meryl Streep) be nominated year after year, because they're being nominated for separate, complete pieces of work, each one different and stand alone (generally). The same webcomic being nominated and (maybe) winning year after year means they're getting several awards of the same kind for the same piece of work which isn't finished yet.


Couldn't have said it better myself (if I could have, I would have!)

Dutch wrote:
Like RC (I think), I don't mind either way which way these awards decide to go. I probably won't pay much attention to them anyway


Indeed. I've already moved on to my next fruitless pursuit.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> TWCL Awards All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Hosted by Fluent
The Webcomics List is operated and owned by Ash Young. Syndicate the comic updates.